(The blog also claims, "This means that the aborted child died after it was born", which doesn't even make logical sense.)

Anyway, all this non-scientific pearl-clutching completely ignores the very valid reasons why a woman would have a late-term abortion.

For those playing at home, here's why a woman would have an abortion after 20 weeks:

The fetus is likely going to die

The woman carrying the fetus is likely going to die

All of the above

Indeed, late-term abortions constitute 0.3 to 0.4 percent of all abortions performed in Canada.

For those imagining babies getting their heads dashed against rocks: the third trimester of a pregnancy typically begins at 24 weeks, so we're talking about late second-term abortions. In Canada, a woman can't even have an elective abortion after 24 weeks anyway, which indicates that one performed at that point would be medically necessary!

But the old, outraged, paternalistic white dudes must have missed the newsflash that explains how doctors do not perform abortions at this stage of a pregnancy for frivolous reasons; generally they do it when the fetus, the mother, or both are going to die otherwise.

So, what these MPs are saying with they're disgusting letter is that they want to subject women—you know, adult humans who have already suffered through the trauma of late-term abortions—and the doctors who perform said abortions to criminal charges.

What's the penalty for homicide in Canada? Oh right: life in prison.

Sadly, there is no penalty against farmers, engineers, and pastors who feel a woman's life is essentially worthless.

Follow Miranda Nelson on Twitter at @charenton_ where she'll be shaking with rage.

Comments

We're now using Facebook for comments.

18 Comments

CLS197

Jan 31, 2013 at 3:31pm

Three middle aged white guys trying to tell women what to do with their bodies. What year is it again?

Laura

Jan 31, 2013 at 4:48pm

There are more children living in poverty now (due to Harper's governments policies) than in the last 50 years.... these Neo.Con. fools should get their thinking straight. Indifference to suffering of actual existing human children while meddling in the eternally-debatable rights of the "unborn" is hypocrisy of the most repugnant sort.

Mr Tea

John

I thought your article was very interesting. I am pro-life and this is a fascinating story to me because of the numerous perspectives it has raised on a widely discussed topic.

I was intrigued by two comments in your article in particular. One was about the idea that it didn't make sense that someone could kill a baby after an abortion. You're right, that doesn't make any sense. Instead, I think the issue raising concern for these MPs (and many others) is what happens to some babies when they are born alive, even though an abortion is attempted, intended but not completed successfully. Out of curiosity I looked it up, and it's fairly disturbing, at the least.

The second thing is about your comment regarding the valid reasons why a woman would have an abortion. Of course I'm not a woman and will never experience pregnancy or the birthing of a child. I'm not attempting to put myself in a woman's shoes or suggest that there's anything I could do to speak intelligently from that perspective. But I do find it interesting that in a world where we place so much emphasis on overcoming the odds, fighting for the underdog, helping those in need (look no further than the Oprah show!) that you would suggest that a valid reason for killing a child is because there's a high likelihood that it will die. In this case of abortion we have just made that high likelihood of death effectively 100%. There is also some medical testimony out of Ireland, following the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar and her baby, suggesting that abortion is never required to save the life of a mother (as opposed to the execution of a medical practice by which a baby may be unintentionally killed, which is different). Of course, I'm not sure that whole situation has been sorted out yet.

N Marie

Feb 1, 2013 at 9:27am

The decision to have an abortion is between the doctor and the woman. These three men aren't the doctor and they aren't the woman. This is not a decision a third PERSON has the right to stick their noses into. What disgusts me is that people like this alway assume the decision to abort is the "easy way out". Like any woman who does it is obviously being frivolous. It is pure and simple sexism.

Ted G

Feb 1, 2013 at 10:51am

Oh yes...Ximena Renaerts. One of those babies "going to die...but she didn't. She was left to die at a British Columbia hospital...a "complication" of a failed abortion. No wonder the Miranda Nelson's of the world don't want to talk about this. I believe the out of court settlement was almost 9 million dollars. Hospital staff left the baby to die...hmm...do you still think these 491 babies were just blobs of tissue that no one has a right to talk about? Think again. This is what 25 years of "settled" abortion gets you.